Post by rmarks1 on Aug 30, 2019 11:15:33 GMT -5

The G-7 Summit, insofar as it dealt with the fires, relied on a hysteria-induced misunderstanding of what’s happening in the Amazon...

The problem with the G-7 summit wasn’t that Donald Trump didn’t get with the program; it was that the program itself, insofar as it dealt with the fires, relied on a hysteria-induced misunderstanding of what’s happening in the Amazon.

The Amazon fires are catnip for proponents of radical action on the climate. They pine for a mediagenic, easy-to-understand planetary emergency and are happy to manufacture one as necessary...

The fires aren’t an epochal event. According to the New York Times, the Brazilian agency tracking fires by satellite reports that, at this point in the year, it’s the highest number of fires since 2010, which isn’t thousands of years ago — indeed, not even a decade ago.

The fires aren’t the spontaneous result of global warming. The program director of the group Amazon Watch told CNN, “The vast majority of these fires are human-lit,” noting that it isn’t easy for the rainforest to catch fire, even in the dry season.

Nor is it true that deforestation in the Amazon is spiraling out of control. Deforestation markedly diminished in the 2000s. It has picked up again under Brazil’s new populist president Jair Bolsonaro, a trend worth monitoring but hardly the onset of planetary catastrophe.

Is the Amazon the lungs of the world? No. This is drivel based on an erroneous understanding of how the atmosphere gets its oxygen.

At the end of the day, the offer that the G-7 made to Brazil of $20 million to help fight the Amazon fires was reasonable enough. The blustery Bolsonaro would be foolish not to accept it. The Amazon is a natural wonder worth preserving on its own terms, and it could at some point get caught in a cycle of drought and fire.

Still, Macron and Co. need to be aware of how their highhandedness comes across in Brazil. Advanced countries that deforested long ago should be humble when insisting that a poorer country not do the same. Proposals to buttress the Amazon have to run with the grain of Brazil’s interests, not against it.

Post by mcans on Aug 31, 2019 8:17:58 GMT -5

Aren't journalists supposed to mention sources or evidence when they accuse people of running a scam?

He did mention his source: The New York Times. The Times article mentioned more sources.

Bob

"The fires aren’t an epochal event. According to the New York Times, the Brazilian agency tracking fires by satellite reports that, at this point in the year, it’s the highest number of fires since 2010, which isn’t thousands of years ago — indeed, not even a decade ago."

No mention of a scam.

scam

an illegal plan for making money, especially one that involves tricking people

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 31, 2019 12:07:21 GMT -5

He did mention his source: The New York Times. The Times article mentioned more sources.

"The fires aren’t an epochal event. According to the New York Times, the Brazilian agency tracking fires by satellite reports that, at this point in the year, it’s the highest number of fires since 2010, which isn’t thousands of years ago — indeed, not even a decade ago."

No mention of a scam.

Fires in the Amazon happen every year. Why now all of a sudden are they making a big thing over it?

Where is his evidence that people are making money off of saying that the Amazonas rainforest is on fire?[/quote]

As ususal, you quote selectively. Here is another definition of "scam":

"Definition of scam

(Entry 1 of 2): a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation an insurance scam

scam verbscammed; scamming

Definition of scam (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb1 : deceive, defraud2 : to obtain (something, such as money) by a scam"

Macron is in the lead with this scam ("deceptive and fraudulent"). Macron is in trouble politically. What better way to distract attention from his domestic problems than to get people concerned about a foreign "crisis" in the Amazon?

Post by mcans on Aug 31, 2019 12:17:19 GMT -5

In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud or recover monetary compensation), a criminal law (i.e., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities), or it may cause no loss of money, property or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong.[1] The purpose of fraud may be monetary gain or other benefits, for example by obtaining a passport, travel document, or driver's license, or mortgage fraud, where the perpetrator may attempt to qualify for a mortgage by way of false statements.

Post by mcans on Aug 31, 2019 12:21:28 GMT -5

Macron is in the lead with this scam ("deceptive and fraudulent"). Macron is in trouble politically. What better way to distract attention from his domestic problems than to get people concerned about a foreign "crisis" in the Amazon?

Politicians do this all the time, though, including the current President of Brazil who has claimed that the fires were being laid by international organizations and socialist saboteurs.

How does that meet the legal definition of fraud?

Also, why doesn't the article cite any evidence that a crime has taken place?

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 31, 2019 13:33:51 GMT -5

Macron is in the lead with this scam ("deceptive and fraudulent"). Macron is in trouble politically. What better way to distract attention from his domestic problems than to get people concerned about a foreign "crisis" in the Amazon?

Politicians do this all the time, though, including the current President of Brazil who has claimed that the fires were being laid by international organizations and socialist saboteurs.

How does that meet the legal definition of fraud?

Also, why doesn't the article cite any evidence that a crime has taken place?

It seems that this would be relevant information.

Of course the article doesn't mention that politicians are committing fraud. That's common knowledge and is taken for granted.

BTW, your comment about the President of Brazil is a Circumstantial ad Hominem. The actions of the President of Brazil do not disprove the claim that European leaders are committing a fraud when it comes to the Amazon.

You even admit that "politicians do this all the time."

What we have here is white politicians from wealthy countries telling a country where people are poorer have darker skin that they can't try to make more money by running their own country the way they want to.

Post by mcans on Sept 1, 2019 9:04:15 GMT -5

What we have here is white politicians from wealthy countries telling a country where people are poorer have darker skin that they can't try to make more money by running their own country the way they want to.

Yes, it would be terrible for crony capitalists if they made less money out of burning down the Earth's forests and worsening the speed and effects of climate change.

I suppose it would be even more "terrible" for people who don't believe in climate change.

Post by rmarks1 on Sept 1, 2019 11:43:34 GMT -5

What we have here is white politicians from wealthy countries telling a country where people are poorer have darker skin that they can't try to make more money by running their own country the way they want to.

Yes, it would be terrible for crony capitalists if they made less money out of burning down the Earth's forests and worsening the speed and effects of climate change.

I suppose it would be even more "terrible" for people who don't believe in climate change.

Sure. Never mind that poverty-stricken people of color in Brazil are now able to earn a living. The rich white people have to keep them down and in their place. Racism Rules, right?

Post by rmarks1 on Sept 1, 2019 23:18:07 GMT -5

I support the right of the Brazilian government (which was democratically elected) to manage Brazil in any way it sees fit that is consistent with Brazilian law.

Is that a yes?

I support the right of the democratically elected Brazilian government to manage Brazil any way it wants to. If the Brazilian people don't like what's happening, they can change the government in the next election.

Support for a democratically elected government to manage their country does not mean support for any of their policies.

Bob

"I support the right of the democratically elected Brazilian government to manage Brazil any way it wants to" is not the same as "I support your right to say whatever you want" unless you believe that making policies and laws is indistinguishable from making speeches.

Post by rmarks1 on Sept 2, 2019 20:48:08 GMT -5

Support for a democratically elected government to manage their country does not mean support for any of their policies.

Bob

"I support the right of the democratically elected Brazilian government to manage Brazil any way it wants to" is not the same as "I support your right to say whatever you want" unless you believe that making policies and laws is indistinguishable from making speeches.

They are the same. I don't give orders to other people regarding what they say or how they choose to live their own lives. This is different from well-fed Westerners like Macron who think they have the wisdom to tell other countries what to do when in fact they have mismanaged their own country.

Post by mcans on Sept 3, 2019 2:19:57 GMT -5

I don't give orders to other people regarding what they say or how they choose to live their own lives.

Even if you actually gave orders to other people, nobody would care to begin with. You have no authority over anybody on this planet. That's not some moral high ground you're occupying here, it's simply a consequence of your irrelevance.

Therefore, you have no grounds to object if people were to call you a child rapist. Correct?[/quote]

But that means you also have no grounds to object if someone were to call you a child rapist.

In fact, there are grounds to object. Very solid grounds.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE!

If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide evidence for that claim.

And that is a basic rule here on the FACTS Board. Otherwise we would have to "prove" that ghosts don't exist, UFO's are not space ships from other planets, and the Jews were not trying to take over Germany before the Nazis saved the country.

CARDINAL RULE: The person making the claim is the one who has to provide the Proof.

Bob

[/quote][/div]

Do you believe your own "cardinal rule" applies to claims you agree with?

Therefore, you have no grounds to object if people were to call you a child rapist. Correct?

Wrong. It is up to the person who makes a claim to provide supporting evidence. Otherwise the "accusation" is no more than a fantasy.

But that means you also have no grounds to object if someone were to call you a child rapist.

In fact, there are grounds to object. Very solid grounds.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE!

If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide evidence for that claim.

And that is a basic rule here on the FACTS Board. Otherwise we would have to "prove" that ghosts don't exist, UFO's are not space ships from other planets, and the Jews were not trying to take over Germany before the Nazis saved the country.

CARDINAL RULE: The person making the claim is the one who has to provide the Proof.

Bob

Do you believe your own "cardinal rule" applies to claims you agree with?